Delhi High Court
Shemsher Singh vs S.Regunthan Chief Secretary & ... on 2 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 22nd February, 2010
Date of Order: 2nd March, 2010
CONT. CAS. (C) No. 558/2004
% 02.03.2010
Shemsher Singh ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Advocate
Versus
S.Regunthan Chief Secretary & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sujata Kashyap, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging
violation of the order passed by this Court on 13 th December, 2002 whereby
this Court gave following directions:
"We cannot approve of a situation where a person is appointed
on temporary or ad hoc basis without having participated in the
process of selection. In case such an appointment is regulated
it would amount to a back door entry into service. The
petitioner, therefore, in our view is not entitled for being
regularized without facing a process of regular selection. But
at the same time it must be ensured that in case the
respondent decided to fill up the post held by the petitioner on
regular basis, it must allow the petitioner to participate in the
process of selection and while considering his case along with
others, the experience acquired by the petitioner in the service
of the respondent must be given due weightage. In case the
posts are to be filled up on regular basis the respondents will
not debar the petitioner on the ground that he has become
overage. "
2. The petitioner contended that despite directions given by this
Court many persons were appointed by the respondent against regular post of
peon but the petitioner was not considered by the respondent.
3. A perusal of affidavit filed by Mr. V.Narayanan, Principal of
Kasturba Polytechnic for Women, Pitampura, Delhi shows that the stand
taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was working as Attendant-cum-
Chowkidar, a temporary post created in 1996 under State Annual Plan 1994-
95 by GNCT Delhi. This scheme was discontinued together with this post by
Finance Department on 23rd May, 2003 as the activities related to security
aspect were advised to be privatized in every government institution. Since
the petitioner was working as Attendant-cum-Chowkidar till January 2003,
under the above scheme, the petitioner's service also came to an end.
Regarding appointments of the 'Peon' (Group-D) by the respondents, it is
submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Attendant-cum-Chowkidar on
daily wages basis under the community polytechnic scheme of Ministry of
HRD Government of India. The petitioner was never engaged as peon.
Therefore, the petitioner was trying to mislead the Court that he was entitled
to be appointed as peon.
4. The logic taken by the respondent is very strange. An attendant
is nothing but a peon. If a person is appointed as Attendant-cum-Chowkidar
that only means that apart from doing duties of peon he has also to work as
Chowkidar. The directions given by this Court vide above order were very
clear that in the next regular post the petitioner would be considered and age
bar would not stand in the way of the petitioner, looking at the fact that he had
a long experience with the respondent. The directions given by this Court
were sought to be circumvented by the respondent on the ground that peon
was a group 'D' post and was different from Attendant-cum-Chowkidar post.
It is admitted by the Counsel for the respondent, during arguments, that peon
against regular Group 'D' posts were appointed. Group 'D' posts are the
posts which are other than clerical posts like posts of mali, chowkidar, peon,
attendant, sweepers etc.. Thus, the plea taken by the respondent was a
fallacious plea and it only seems that the directions given by the Court were
deliberately circumvented. I consider that the respondent is guilty of
Contempt of Court. However, one opportunity is given to the respondent to
purge himself of the Contempt and to appoint the petitioner against next
available regular Class IV (Group 'D') post.
5. List this matter on 5th July, 2010 for further orders. In case the
petitioner is not appointed against next available Class-IV post, the
respondent shall undergo sentence as may be awarded by this Court under
Contempt of Court Act.
March 02, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
